2016 Luke Beveridge

2017 Damien Hardwick

The Taylor thing broke down THEN succeeded. His first seven games produced 2 goals. His next 12 produced 18.

In the PF Dangerfield had 3 shots on goal in the first 40 minutes of the game. Guess what happened a week earlier against Sydney? Yep. 3 shots in the first 40 minutes.

For years Scott has had this stupid ‘no plan b’ thing hanging around his neck, yet if anything it’s a strength. While we get jumped as much as the next team, I can’t remember ever watching an afl team find ways with the regularity that we do, to stop whatever it is that’s going wrong. The knock on him is that in some cases either a) we absorb so much damage when plan A isn’t working that we literally are too far behind to work our way back, or b) he’s too reluctant to put plan B into action.

It’s evidenced by 5 losses over 50 points in 7 years (two of them by 50 and 51 I might add). That tells you that when we are losing, we at least find a way to stem the tide, a fairly good mark of a coach who can find alternative game plans.

Click to expand...

If you go into any game with a plan of how you were going to win you aren't giving enough credit to the opposition, how can game plan a work if the opposition don't let you play it.
The key is to go in with a basic defensive mindset and adapt to the oppositions moves, a reactive approach.
Look at Ports last qtr in the 2014 PF, Clarko didn't expect Port to charge from the back of the square as it isn't something that is done regularly, we didn't just do it from the first kick, we did it when we knew Hawthorn weren't expecting it and it almost worked.
Phil Walsh was a master tactician much like Clarko.

With all the talk of Danger starting forward or centre in the lead up to that game I would have played him in defence to A, throw a curve ball at Pyke and B, to nullify Adelaide's attack like Rance did on GF day, the man can take contested marks flat footed and has the speed and reach to spoil leads, then when things weren't working for Adelaide, throw him in the middle to get the ball moving the other way.
You don't win finals in the first 10 minutes as Adelaide discovered on Saturday.
Richmond didn't win the GF because they're a better side, they won because they weathered the storm.

Either our list is shit - which everyone keeps saying, and to keep making prelims and top 4 every year is a coaching masterpiece, or Scott is toilet, which everyone keeps saying, and somehow he is acting as a tremendous drag factor to players who would be superstars under any other coach, like Smith, Stanley, Thurlow, Motlop, Blicavs, Menegola, Scott Selwood, Daniel Menzel, Jake Kolojadshnij, Parfitt, Guthrie, Horlin-Smith etc.

If you go into any game with a plan of how you were going to win you aren't giving enough credit to the opposition, how can game plan a work if the opposition don't let you play it.
The key is to go in with a basic defensive mindset and adapt to the oppositions moves, a reactive approach.
Look at Ports last qtr in the 2014 PF, Clarko didn't expect Port to charge from the back of the square as it isn't something that is done regularly, we didn't just do it from the first kick, we did it when we knew Hawthorn weren't expecting it and it almost worked.
Phil Walsh was a master tactician much like Clarko.

With all the talk of Danger starting forward or centre in the lead up to that game I would have played him in defence to A, throw a curve ball at Pyke and B, to nullify Adelaide's attack like Rance did on GF day, the man can take contested marks flat footed and has the speed and reach to spoil leads, then when things weren't working for Adelaide, throw him in the middle to get the ball moving the other way.
You don't win finals in the first 10 minutes as Adelaide discovered on Saturday.
Richmond didn't win the GF because they're a better side, they won because they weathered the storm.

Click to expand...

Any points you may have had that were steeped in validity, were nullified by:

Using the phrase ‘you don’t win finals in the first 10 minutes’ whilst debating Geelong’s loss to Adelaide.

Just because your team, after nearly 4 decades of producing more shit than the sewer pipes at Bondi, has deservedly won something, doesn’t render literally every other team in the comp as garbage mate.

Any points you may have had that were steeped in validity, were nullified by:

Using the phrase ‘you don’t win finals in the first 10 minutes’ whilst debating Geelong’s loss to Adelaide.

Click to expand...

Lol, let me spell it out for you, you don't win finals in the first 10 minutes unless your opposition is so into themselves that they don't rate you.
The media made such a fuss about where Danger would start that CS thought the answer to winning the game rested on what HE did with Danger, that's arrogance and because he thought the game rested on his decision making alone, he was behind the 8 ball before the first bounce.
When it didn't unfold the way he perceived, he had nothing and sat in the box dumbfounded.

Lol, let me spell it out for you, you don't win finals in the first 10 minutes unless your opposition is so into themselves that they don't rate you.
The media made such a fuss about where Danger would start that CS thought the answer to winning the game rested on what HE did with Danger, that's arrogance and because he thought the game rested on his decision making alone, he was behind the 8 ball before the first bounce.
When it didn't unfold the way he perceived, he had nothing and sat in the box dumbfounded.

Sports psychology 101.

Click to expand...

Yes it was arrogance.

It wasn’t ‘our best chance of kicking goals is through the guy who kicked a bagful last week.’ It was arrogance.

F*** me there are a lot of things I hate about modern sports analysis but the idea that some no-name from nowhere (I’m one as well) knows exactly what someone is thinking when they make a decision and why they make it is at the top of the list.

Like the dickheads that accuse someone of playing arrogant shots in cricket when in reality they’ve just frozen and had a brain melt - really, how does anyone bar the person themselves know?

It wasn’t ‘our best chance of kicking goals is through the guy who kicked a bagful last week.’ It was arrogance.

F*** me there are a lot of things I hate about modern sports analysis but the idea that some no-name from nowhere (I’m one as well) knows exactly what someone is thinking when they make a decision and why they make it is at the top of the list.

Like the dickheads that accuse someone of playing arrogant shots in cricket when in reality they’ve just frozen and had a brain melt - really, how does anyone bar the person themselves know?

Click to expand...

If you give people the right tools, they will hang themselves, that my friend is beating someone between the ears.
when you're talking elite sports like the AFL where all teams play under the same cap, with the same training regimes, the only thing left to chance is the mental aspect. 10% of sport is ability, 90% between the ears, underestimate it at your peril.
Lets look at Geelong for example, after thumping Port by 119pts in that final two things happened, the Geelong football club became confident and the rest of the league became mentally scarred, no one expected to beat you guys and you rode that wave for years.
Brisbane rode it too, and lets not forget how they overcame the issue of Essendon's dominance, if it bleeds we can kill it, that's psychology.
I think anyone who watches football would attest to switching on a Geelong game and not wondering who would win, but by what margin you would win by, that's a psychological barrier, if you think it only affects the punters you're wrong.
Take the Crows stance for another example, all they did was stand there, never said a word yet every man and their dog were talking about it, that's a psychological edge, not because it was going to alter the results but because it drew attention from the more important issues.
Do you think where Danger started would ultimately affect the result one way or another, nope, what it did was take CS attention off the rest of the team and make him 1 dimensional in his approach to the game.

don't get it..the longest time spent as coach before you snag a title, or the lowest game winning score average before you win the big one.
or else you have the greatest number of injured players in your top 22 or even that you have a larger ratio of top ranked players out of your team over
a season..

worst is worst when you categorise the various ways you can be the worst.

or even it can be as banal as the most hated personality of all coaches.

If you give people the right tools, they will hang themselves, that my friend is beating someone between the ears.
when you're talking elite sports like the AFL where all teams play under the same cap, with the same training regimes, the only thing left to chance is the mental aspect. 10% of sport is ability, 90% between the ears, underestimate it at your peril.
Lets look at Geelong for example, after thumping Port by 119pts in that final two things happened, the Geelong football club became confident and the rest of the league became mentally scarred, no one expected to beat you guys and you rode that wave for years.
Brisbane rode it too, and lets not forget how they overcame the issue of Essendon's dominance, if it bleeds we can kill it, that's psychology.
I think anyone who watches football would attest to switching on a Geelong game and not wondering who would win, but by what margin you would win by, that's a psychological barrier, if you think it only affects the punters you're wrong.
Take the Crows stance for another example, all they did was stand there, never said a word yet every man and their dog were talking about it, that's a psychological edge, not because it was going to alter the results but because it drew attention from the more important issues.
Do you think where Danger started would ultimately affect the result one way or another, nope, what it did was take CS attention off the rest of the team and make him 1 dimensional in his approach to the game.

Click to expand...

We rode the wave for less than a year before Hawthorn beat us in a grand final.